MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924532505 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2013-0004

Escape responses by jet propulsion in scallops

2013· article· en· W1924532505 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Helga Guderley, Isabelle Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyScallopAdductor musclesEscape responseEcologyPredationOntogeny

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impressive swimming escape response of scallops uses a simple locomotor system that facilitates analysis of the functional relationships between its primary components. One large adductor muscle, two valves, the muscular mantle, and the rubbery hinge ligament are the basic elements allowing swimming by jet propulsion. Although these basic functional elements are shared among scallop species, the exact nature of the escape response varies considerably within and among species. Valve shape and density have opposing influences upon the capacity for swimming and the ease of attack by predators once captured. Patterns of muscle use can partly overcome the constraints imposed by shell characteristics. The depletion of muscle reserves during gametogenesis leads to a trade-off between escape response performance and reproductive investment. However, changes in muscle energetic status influence repeat performance more than initial escape performance. Escape response performance is influenced by habitat temperature and mariculture techniques. During scallop ontogeny, changes in susceptibility to predation and in reproductive investment may influence escape response capacities. These ontogenetic patterns are likely to vary with the longevity and maximal size of each species. Although the basic elements allowing swimming by jet propulsion are common to scallops, their exact use varies considerably among species.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207